Being a Better Writer: Character Matters · 10:18pm Apr 10th, 2018
So, last week I was browsing the web (one of my favorite pastimes for finding interesting details and acquiring knowledge) when I came across a very … shall we say, interestingpost. It was on a book forum, where someone was, if I recall the context correctly, talking about a specific Sci-Fi book they tried to read. A recent award winner, again if I recall correctly, from one of those snooty ‘literary’ awards. Anyway, they mentioned that they’d tried reading it, but had given up because, as they explained, all the characters fell flat. Or rather, wereflat, simply mouthpieces to explain the story’s science. They had no other character or uniqueness other than a name. They were just there as, well, robots, to drive the science forward. Other than that, they were simply flat caricatures. As a result, the reader had given up on the book, because there was no character to revolve around.
Now, this post jumped out at me for two reasons. The first, but notthe foremost, was that it lined up with a news article I recall reading a few years ago about in which a major publisher, faced with the falling sales of their Sci-Fi and Fantasy, conducted a nationwide survey of their former readers (no idea how they pulled that off, but they have to have some metric for it) asking whytheir former readers had abandoned them. The answer? That too many of their books just didn’t have goodcharacters anymore, or worse, had characters that were just ideological mouthpieces for the science/social angle of the book. Without strong, compelling, or real characters, their readers had abandoned them.
The second reason that this post jumped out at me was the responseto it. This was on a forum that is … Well, let’s just say they’re the kind of readers that the current publishers wantto have in greater number. The response was immediate and, shockingly, angry.We’re talking caps and exclamation marks about how darethis reader put down a book because the characters weren’t good. Because—and understand I’m summarizing a number of posts here—characters aren’timportant. They’re just mouthpieces to present the science. You’re not supposedto care about them. Or find them interesting. If you do, that’s a bonus, nota requirement. Blah blah blah, you read the book for the message, not for the characters, who cares if they’re shallow, etc etc etc.
Reading over this led me to this post. Where I’m going to say something flat-out.
That stance? That characters don’t matter? It’s wrong. From start to finish. This isn’t even a matter of opinion. That’s why the survey sprang to mind. That survey said that people docare about characters, that peopleare invested in how characters act and why. And do you know why?
Because they are!Great characters make stories come to life! They sellstories. Not science or social messages. Those can be pandered anyone in a deadpan monotone and still find their audience of those already subscribed to the idea. But a story? That takes characters.
This was certainly an interesting read that I'm glad I finally got around to reading (which I generally do with all the BaBW posts nowadays). Interestingly, the biggest thing I've gotten out of this seems so obvious that I feel silly for how I've thought about the matter before: I see my strongest aspect of writing as being the characters; maybe not how I write them, but figuring them out and having a good feel for how they'd act and react naturally. I see my weakest aspect of writing as being descriptions, especially of the setting. All this time, I have thought of characters and the setting as two completely different beasts with completely different methods of tackling them, and I just wasn't all that good at one. While I don't think the setting can be viewed as perfectly analogous to any other character, I can see how using the same lines of thinking might make working the setting in naturally a lot easier for me to wrap my head around.
There's no way to know until I've tried it out, of course.
Also along the lines of message fiction and unloading your message with all the grace of a falling brick: I find, at least locally, that this method of communication is becoming disturbingly common in education systems. I have pondered the topic of communication on and off, and the conclusions I tend towards involve all parties being responsible for considering the other perspectives whether they are on the receiving or contributing end. Otherwise, one party is communicating with the equivalent of a brick wall, and that might end up happening in all directions at once if it continues unchecked.
That said, what I hear and see in the local education systems in, say, a general English class (or the services available for helping you write papers in the case of the local college), advocate for what ends up being the assumption that your readers cannot think for themselves and you must guide their thoughts. Even typing that sentence out makes me feel uncomfortable. It seems to me, at least at first glance, that this will only end up selecting for readers predisposed to agreeing with your statements or triggering cognitive dissonance in the ones that aren't and you end up trying to change the mind of the aforementioned brick wall equivalent. This is exactly what I see in the arguments of the local social justice warriors, as well (unsurprisingly?).
I haven't really thought it all out, but reading back on what I've typed, I am curious how this came to be. I would think that assuming your reader can think for themselves and not trying to direct what they think will run into the same self-selection and cognitive dissonance in more obstinate individuals, but would be more well-received in the less obstinate individuals who would otherwise be turned off by the more narrow focus of the work at hand. It would also seem to require that you as the creator are capable of considering the other perspectives, which, I think, is where the reader would otherwise pick up on your obstinance and give up on that instance of communication or return the favor. Maybe this ties into identity/goal-oriented methods of political thinking, but I'm going to wrap up my comment here and continue to think on this, lest I start speculating even more than I have about things that I have even less experience with (and hope I don't regret what I have already said).